Don't you love how he includes a minimalist idea as a whole idea? Meaning, I don't know much about Evolution equates to me not knowing science. You, apparently state something about a baby, and that equates to you calling him a rapist.

Crazy.

-Nam

You've said you don't know much about science in an earlier post, in addition to how you didn't finish high school. Yet you are calling me stupid. Maybe you are stupid and too stupid to know it.

You don't understand where the rapist thing came from. It was on the abortion thread and they did imply I was a rapist due to a poorly crafted sentence. One of them even made it their signature so why would they do that if there wasn't an implication there.

You don't ever actually talki about Science in here in specifics. You just talk about Science in general and how you know Science but it is pretty clear you don't think much about anything. You just here to insult people. Every other word is "stupid". You seem insecure, brother. You kind of remind of that bimbo Miss South Carolina contestant a few years ago "it's Science, you guys". lol

Show me this post. If I said it, show me. But look, now it's "I don't know much about science", before you said I said I didn't know anything about science.

Make up your mind, man. Keep your lies straight.

If I were here to just insult people they would have banned me for life a long time ago; and don't assume that they wouldn't because I am an atheist, atheists have been banned from here before.

You seem more to have a problem with atheists than you do anything else. Did you get beat up by an atheist recently? Did he hurt your feelings?

Get a life.

To add this isn't a "science website" it's an atheist website, and atheism is not science and science is not atheism.

Your point makes no sense. Lifeforms in their early life are still primitive meaning that they are supported by their mother. Their systems are not developed and if they are IC, they do not work until the entire system is formed. The IC system is encoded in their DNA. You can not conflate about how lifeforms develop in life with how they evolved. It is two separate things.

Every organism, no matter what it is, can only survive in an environment that's hospitable to it. That means there is no functional difference between a zygote in its mother's womb and a single-celled organism in whatever environment it can survive in. That means that your objection is irrelevant; as I said, all that matters is that the organism can survive without it. That gives it time (in a zygote's case, the months it needs to grow the system; in other cases, much longer) to develop further.

Quote from: DrTesla

You are confused by this.

I am not at all confused. I am also not the one declaring that something is impossible merely because I don't understand how it could happen.

Quote from: DrTesla

There is no way gradual change can lead to an IC system because there is no functional precursor to an IC system...it would fail without just one part. This is what you can't explain, by your own admission.

This is a lie, and you are getting a smite for it. You cherry-picked from my earlier post so you could pretend I couldn't explain, when in fact I went on to explain how a complex system could in fact evolve, as I am quoting here:

"Second, I (and others) showed that evolution naturally conserves mutations, so long as the organism carrying them survives long enough to reproduce, thus passing them on to its offspring. It doesn't matter that these mutations by themselves might not have any particular effect; evolution is good at providing the impetus to turn something into an advantage given enough time. Not only that, but those mutations are then available for other mutations to affect. Note that I'm not talking about anatomy, but genes. If enough key genes are changed without setting off something that's lethal to its carrier, then you can have totally new traits develop in an organism. But even without that, most evolutionary changes act as refinements to things that already exist in an organism. This demonstrates how small changes can add up to big ones, thus demonstrating how they could have developed gradually."

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Again: I am poor at math. How is this not getting through to you. I know people base intelligence on math but that's idiotic since even with math: you're an idiot.

And I am not embarrassed, why should I be?

Look at that, your last line: twisting things. You do that a lot.

-Nam

Most people who are poor at math manage to graduaate high school. It is one class a year or semester. I am assuming it wasn't a math only school. You could make a C, even a D and still manage to graduate.

No, you guys twist thiings and I was showing how it easy it is to play gotcha.

I am going to ignore you from now on because you aren't here to discuss Science. I think you just trying to bait me into attacking you then get the moderator to ban me.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

Again: I am poor at math. How is this not getting through to you. I know people base intelligence on math but that's idiotic since even with math: you're an idiot.

And I am not embarrassed, why should I be?

Look at that, your last line: twisting things. You do that a lot.

-Nam

Most people who are poor at math manage to graduaate high school. It is one class a year or semester. I am assuming it wasn't a math only school. You could make a C, even a D and still manage to graduate.

No, it wasn't a "math only" school but it's not like anyone there cared, they were busy surviving.

Quote

No, you guys twist thiings and I was showing how it easy it is to play gotcha.

What words of yours have we twisted?

Quote

I am going to ignore you from now on because you aren't here to discuss Science. I think you just trying to bait me into attacking you then get the moderator to ban me.

"Behe in the Dover trial concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve.

Lawyer -- "You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complexand thus could not have been produced directly, however,one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of anindirect, circuitous route, right?Behe -- "Yes."Lawyer -- "And by indirect, you mean evolution from apre-cursor with a different function than the systembeing studied?"Behe -- "Yes, different function, perhaps different numberof parts, and so on.""[1][2][3]

Every organism, no matter what it is, can only survive in an environment that's hospitable to it. That means there is no functional difference between a zygote in its mother's womb and a single-celled organism in whatever environment it can survive in. That means that your objection is irrelevant; as I said, all that matters is that the organism can survive without it. That gives it time (in a zygote's case, the months it needs to grow the system; in other cases, much longer) to develop further.

Ok, I don't see how this contradicts my point. It doesn't need the IC systems when the mother's body is helping it out. Again, the IC systems are encoding in the DNA at that point so they don't need functional precursors to create it. Natural selection doesn't need to select a function to act on if it not evolving in the first place. It has inherited the evolved or designed IC system, depending on your viewpoint, from its parents.

I

Quote

am not at all confused. I am also not the one declaring that something is impossible merely because I don't understand how it could happen.

Don't you declare there is no intelligent design because you don't understand how it could happen given you don't believe in God. So your logic just as easily undermines you.

Quote

This is a lie, and you are getting a smite for it. You cherry-picked from my earlier post so you could pretend I couldn't explain, when in fact I went on to explain how a complex system could in fact evolve, as I am quoting here:

Quote

"Second, I (and others) showed that evolution naturally conserves mutations, so long as the organism carrying them survives long enough to reproduce, thus passing them on to its offspring. It doesn't matter that these mutations by themselves might not have any particular effect; evolution is good at providing the impetus to turn something into an advantage given enough time. Not only that, but those mutations are then available for other mutations to affect. Note that I'm not talking about anatomy, but genes. If enough key genes are changed without setting off something that's lethal to its carrier, then you can have totally new traits develop in an organism. But even without that, most evolutionary changes act as refinements to things that already exist in an organism. This demonstrates how small changes can add up to big ones, thus demonstrating how they could have developed gradually."

How is it cherrpicking to address the IC issue which is the main issue we have been talking about. lolI don't see how you have proven evolution accounts for IC, you basically just asserted again that it does. Again, an IC system, all the parts need to be there and well matched to perform the function.

I don't see how neutral mutations can lead to evolution. A neutral mutation is really only somewhat neutral in that the genes are broken like in a negative mutation, the difference is the neutral mutation doesn't increase or decrease survival. But it seems as neutral mutations are passed on to the offspring, as they add up it leads to the offspring have more more and more deficient genes which doesn't sound like a good starting point for evolution. Also you need to consider that the neutral genes in the offspring would be MORE lkely to combine with a negative mutation give there are more negative mutations than positve mutations, so the negative mutation would be selected against and these combined neutral-negative lifeform would eventually be weeded out. And then we also start to challenge the law of probability that random mutations across generation happen to combine with each other "just so" to add up to something that is complex and useful.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

"Behe in the Dover trial concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve.

Lawyer -- "You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complexand thus could not have been produced directly, however,one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of anindirect, circuitous route, right?Behe -- "Yes."

You left out the key part where he says that he mentioned that possibliy in his book, but he also asserts that it highly improbable to the point of being impossible. The beauty of Darwin evol theory is it took random chance out of the equation, there was a natural mechanism leading to more complex things. Indirect evolution is essentially introducing random chance again.

Ok guys, El Rushbo just went off the radio, I need to go run a few errands. been fun.

Don't you declare there is no intelligent design because you don't understand how it could happen given you don't believe in God. So your logic just as easily undermines you.

No, this is false. We DO NOT say "there is no intelligent design" (just like we don't make a positive assertion about "no gods"). The time to believe a claim is when there is sufficient evidence - not when all you have is an argument from ignorance/personal incredulity. "It just seems so unlikely to me, therefore...designer" is a logically fallacious argument.

How is it cherrpicking to address the IC issue which is the main issue we have been talking about. lolI don't see how you have proven evolution accounts for IC, you basically just asserted again that it does. Again, an IC system, all the parts need to be there and well matched to perform the function.

It doesn't matter b/c that isn't at all what evolution states, and you are making another argument from ignorance. It makes no difference whatsoever if "all the parts need to be there". That is a red-herring (another logical fallacy). Parts can be missing and have other functions (i.e. - precursors), and genetic mutations provide a reasonable pathway to those precursors. As Jaime noted, mutations do not have to be functionally beneficial (you overlooked this and keep saying "I just can't see...!). They can be neutral or non-lethal and provide a foundation for further mutation (on any level of the beneficial/non-beneficial gradient).

I don't see how neutral mutations can lead to evolution. A neutral mutation is really only somewhat neutral in that the genes are broken like in a negative mutation, the difference is the neutral mutation doesn't increase or decrease survival. But it seems as neutral mutations are passed on to the offspring, as they add up it leads to the offspring have more more and more deficient genes which doesn't sound like a good starting point for evolution. Also you need to consider that the neutral genes in the offspring would be MORE lkely to combine with a negative mutation give there are more negative mutations than positve mutations, so the negative mutation would be selected against and these combined neutral-negative lifeform would eventually be weeded out. And then we also start to challenge the law of probability that random mutations across generation happen to combine with each other "just so" to add up to something that is complex and useful.

Every time you bring up this "law of probability" you aren't saying anything useful to the discussion b/c it leads to an argument from personal ignorance/incredulity fallacy. You simply do not know what is impossible and merely asserting that something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible or ruled out a priori. Further, you haven't brought forth any positive evidence of "design" you just keep ASSERTING it (as if b/c it looks designed to you it must be!). But that is not the way science works. You don't get to circumvent the scientific process just because you personal can't imagine how something in the biology of the natural world happened.

You left out the key part where he says that he mentioned that possibliy in his book, but he also asserts that it highly improbable to the point of being impossible.

Could you quantify any of that? What does highly improbable to the point of being impossible mean exactly?

Do you actually have a sense of the magnitude of numbers being discussed?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

What evidence do you have that indirect evolution leads to complex systems. That is another "just so" story.

It doesn't make sense that one system with one function merges with another system and enhances that system's function. That sounds like incredible and pure luke, a freak of nature. lol how would the parts of each system know how to interact with the parts of the other system and be assembled in the right way to allow the function?

This is skepticism, not argument from increduality. Those are basically the same thing regardless.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

"Behe in the Dover trial concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve.

Lawyer -- "You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complexand thus could not have been produced directly, however,one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of anindirect, circuitous route, right?Behe -- "Yes."

You left out the key part where he says that he mentioned that possibliy in his book, but he also asserts that it highly improbable to the point of being impossible. The beauty of Darwin evol theory is it took random chance out of the equation, there was a natural mechanism leading to more complex things. Indirect evolution is essentially introducing random chance again.

Ok guys, El Rushbo just went off the radio, I need to go run a few errands. been fun.

You are quite wrong in both of your assertions about. First (and for the 100th time), "improbable" does not mean impossible. You are making the same mistake Behe does (assuming, based on your incredulity) that something couldn't have happened b/c you personally cannot see how. At best that leaves you with ignorance, not a faulty argument from ignorance gap argument. But you don't know what could not have happened. YOU ARE ASSUMING. And your assumptions are based upon your presupposition that a "designer" did it. It's the designer of the gaps fallacy (over and over and over and over and over and over, again).

Second, Darwin's model did not "take random chance out of the equation". You keep going back to Darwin, and completely ignoring all of the other science (like genetics) that has been done since then. Darwin pioneered the explanations of his observations and further independent testing has consistently confirmed his explanations. It's called science, and you seemingly do not know how that process works or what it entails.

Again, you should stop asserting fallacious arguments and start admitting when you don't know things. Asserting "a designer did it" is putting the cart before the horse.

What evidence do you have that indirect evolution leads to complex systems. That is another "just so" story.

It doesn't make sense that one system with one function merges with another system and enhances that system's function. That sounds like incredible and pure luke, a freak of nature. lol how would the parts of each system know how to interact with the parts of the other system and be assembled in the right way to allow the function?

This is skepticism, not argument from increduality. Those are basically the same thing regardless.

No, you are NOT showing skepticism. Because if you were truly skeptical you would not be immediately asserting/believing "a designer must have done it". You would be admitting ignorance and continuing to investigate. Instead you are in fact trying to use incredulity to assert your position. I'm sorry that you refuse to see that but it IS the case. You simply cannot infer a designer based upon your lack of ability to imagine how it happened any other way. You are continually using a textbook Argument from Incredulity fallacy and it fails.

i've clearly put "only design can explain IC" before "a designer did it" I also said random freaks of nature could have done it, just close to impossible if not impossible because of laws of probability.

If you do not apologize, kind sir, I shall like to challenge you to a duel. lol

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

what are the odds that life just originated from non-life on its own including the DNA that encodes everything.

Nil. The "DNA that encodes everything" cannot have originated from non-life.

The DNA that encodes everything can only have evolved from naturally occurring self-replicating biopolymers.It's part of the science of abiogenesis.

How does self replicatoin happen without that being encoded somehow. Just pure chance again? lol 'I am just going to self replicate today because evolution and Science". lol

Notice how (over and over) you ask a question like, ,"How is this even possible!?" or "How could this have happened" only to then (a second later) infer a magic designer.

Classic incredulity. The questions you are asking should give you pause - not the propulsion to merely assert what is intuitive to you. You need to follow the evidence (study/research/investigate) not lead it.

your assumption seems to be that it did happen on its own even if you can't prove it or explain how in a logical way it happened. Again, this is based in your assumption that there is no "God".

So you have two assumptions going at once. There is no God and evolution must explain everything even if we don't have proof yet. I can just as easly say intelligent design must explain everything even if we don't have the proof yet

I think you just want to reframe my arguments as some kind of debate trickery, and then knock down the reframed argument. This is called a "strawman".

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

i've clearly put "only design can explain IC" before "a designer did it" I also said random freaks of nature could have done it, just close to impossible if not impossible because of laws of probability.

If you do not apologize, kind sir, I shall like to challenge you to a duel. lol

Now you just contradicted yourself. First you say, "only design can explain..." then you say, "random freaks of nature could have done it..." This why people are calling you stupid. You need to see that. Your thinking processes are irrational. You are continually trying to use logically fallacious arguments. They don't work.

Secondly, merely ASSERTING (assuming) your position in advance ("only design can explain...") is exactly what I pointed out earlier. This tips your hand right there. You started with your conclusion and are trying to work backwards. That is the opposite of science.

Ok, I don't see how this contradicts my point. It doesn't need the IC systems when the mother's body is helping it out. Again, the IC systems are encoding in the DNA at that point so they don't need functional precursors to create it. Natural selection doesn't need to select a function to act on if it not evolving in the first place. It has inherited the evolved or designed IC system, depending on your viewpoint, from its parents.

Exactly. A zygote doesn't need various systems when it has the means to survive without them. That means it has time to develop those systems. What that means is that an organism which can survive without a system can develop that system from scratch, through natural evolution. If you can't rule that out, you can't disprove evolution.

Quote from: DrTesla

Don't you declare there is no intelligent design because you don't understand how it could happen given you don't believe in God. So your logic just as easily undermines you.

No, I don't so declare - and quit making assumptions about what I believe or don't believe. My point is that there is no evidence that shows that the intelligent design you claim had to happen, actually did happen. I am not basing my argument on a lack of understanding, but on a lack of evidence. To be blunt, if there were verifiable evidence which showed that something we didn't understand had come to Earth and created the first life-form, then it wouldn't matter whether I understood how it had done that or not.

Quote from: DrTesla

How is it cherrpicking to address the IC issue which is the main issue we have been talking about. lol

It's cherry-picking because you only quoted the first point I made, and then lied by claiming that I had said I couldn't explain how an "irreducibly complex" system could have evolved, when I in fact did explain one way in which it could have worked in the paragraph immediately after the one you quoted.

Quote from: DrTesla

I don't see how you have proven evolution accounts for IC, you basically just asserted again that it does. Again, an IC system, all the parts need to be there and well matched to perform the function.

Yes, the entire problem here is that you don't see. That's why your argument is based on incredulity. You're arguing that evolution is false because you don't think it can explain complex biological structures, not because you actually took the time or made the effort to examine the evidence which says otherwise.

Quote from: DrTesla

I don't see how neutral mutations can lead to evolution.

Again, you don't see. Every post you've made in this thread has basically been, "I don't see" or "I don't understand". When are you going to figure out that just because you don't see or understand something makes no difference in whether it happened or not?

Quote from: DrTesla

A neutral mutation is really only somewhat neutral in that the genes are broken like in a negative mutation, the difference is the neutral mutation doesn't increase or decrease survival.

A neutral mutation does not break genes. For that matter, a lethal mutation does not break genes either. That's a presumption of yours based on your belief that life was designed by something intelligent (and the further presumption that changes in the way an organism functions are negative unless they're positive). A mutation changes gene sequences. In some cases, these altered gene sequences prevent an organism based on them from being viable, and it dies. It doesn't mean that the organism was 'broken' somehow. It simply means that the altered gene sequences didn't result in something that could live. But neutral mutations do result in something that can live. They don't damage the organism, they don't damage its genetic structure. They simply alter it a bit. Add up enough minor changes and you can easily end up with a major one.

Quote from: DrTesla

But it seems as neutral mutations are passed on to the offspring, as they add up it leads to the offspring have more more and more deficient genes which doesn't sound like a good starting point for evolution.

False again. Mutations do not result in deficient genes. They simply result in altered ones.

Quote from: DrTesla

Also you need to consider that the neutral genes in the offspring would be MORE lkely to combine with a negative mutation give there are more negative mutations than positve mutations, so the negative mutation would be selected against and these combined neutral-negative lifeform would eventually be weeded out.

And there are far more neutral mutations than positive and negative ones put together. Far, far more. So a neutral mutation is much more likely to combine with other neutral mutations. ASo if you have neutral mutations stacking upon other neutral mutations, over time the chances increase that it will have an effect on the organism. And the key point is that the really harmful mutations tend to weed themselves out, usually pretty quickly, so only the stuff that allows for viable organisms gets passed on.

Quote from: DrTesla

And then we also start to challenge the law of probability that random mutations across generation happen to combine with each other "just so" to add up to something that is complex and useful.

This again? I don't think you understand probability well enough to make such a blanket statement. But here, I'll give you the chance to prove otherwise with a couple probability questions.

If you increase the number of situations in which something can happen, how does that affect the odds of that something actually happening?

About how many people do you need in a room to have a 50% chance that any two of them will have a shared birthday? About how many do you need for a 99% chance that any two of them will have a shared birthday?